Students’ perceptions of using in writing of descriptive text with u-dictionary application and peer collaborative
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The student’s perception is a crucial thing in the teaching and learning process. This study aimed to know the students’ perception of the use U-dictionary after school facilitating U-dictionary to make an easy learning and teaching on writing English Languange. The researcher applied descriptive research with a quantitative approach to analyze the students’ perceptions and reaction. The data collection technique used was a questionnaire and the data analysis technique used was descriptive statistical analysis using SPSS 16. The findings showed that students’ perception of positif and negative U-dictionary as seen from 100 respondents, Which the result of positive questionnaire statement is about 70.25%. In contrast, negative questionnaire statement only gets 58.5%. Thus, Some students from SMP 18 think that the U-dictionary is a tool that makes it easier for them to learn to write simple sentence in English, however, other students think that the U-dictionary is not recomanded for learning, but the result U-dictionary make learning more easier \n.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it